- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:29:46 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On May 23, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 23/05/11 04:01, Pat Hayes wrote: >> The proposal outlined in the wiki here >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/LanguageTaggedLiteralDatatypeProposal >> >> completes Richard and my action item 48 from the last telecon. >> >> Pat > > -0 > > I'm not sure this provides sufficient benefit - tagged literals exist and applications have to (and want to) deal with them. True, but I don't quite see your point. > > It does mean you can write "rdfs:range rdf:LanguageTaggedString" ; it's hard to say "rdfs:range <a string, which might be tagged>" (I suppose rdf:PlainLiteral would capture that Yes, exactly, that is the intention. rdf:PlainLIteral is any plain literal, which means now xsd:string literals and lang tagged literals; and rdf:LTL is just the lang tagged literals. And just the untagged ones is xsd:string, of course. rdf:PlainLIteral is the (disjoint) union of xsd:string and rdf:LTL. > ). > > So taking Ivan's FOAF file: > > <foaf:name xml:lang="hu">Herman Iván</foaf:name> > <foaf:name>Ivan Herman</foaf:name> > > It does have a cost which is the deployed code that assumes literals have a language tag or a datatype. Well, that has to now be understood as either a lang tag or a datatype **other than rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral**. As nobody has previously written code that mentioned this datatype, I don't think this is likely to cause any serious problems. And notice, the proposal keeps the present written form of all RDF string literals in all RDF surface syntaxes. Pat > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 01:30:36 UTC